Behringer 2600

Any music gear discussions that don't fit into one of the other forums.

Moderators: luketeaford, Joe., lisa, Kent

Post Reply
User avatar
Analog Prophet
Common Wiggler
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:24 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Analog Prophet » Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:12 am

Divinital wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:29 pm
Analog Prophet wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:16 pm
Sounds great, looks cool, still not cancel my preordered Korg Arp 2600.
Korg isn’t in the name of either ARP reissue.
Yes Arp was purchased by Korg 5 years ago. I’m happy Korg has honored the Arp brand and resurrected those great machines to a Jurassic Park of old legends accessible to everybody... more or less.
The best beat of any music
is the beat of your own heart


http://www.analogprophet.com

User avatar
nectarios
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2651
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by nectarios » Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:38 am

KSS wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 4:21 pm
nectarios wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:43 pm
And there will be a cheaper version with what remains to be seen/heard.
Korg expressly denied that there would be a 2600 mini to follow the full size. Beware of GS threads where things get twisted and distorted over 100 pages plus. What starts out a hypothetical more often than not becomes something seen as true. Gotta read ALL the pages to see the evolution if you really want to get as close to truth as possible on an internet forum. And sometimes dive into the supposed 'sources' mentioned. Have done all that, as all things ARP are of interest to me.

It is easily explained how Guitar Center got those pics and also why they don't necessarily represent any upcoming product.

This of course does not mean Korg can't change their mind. But as of now, they have no plans for a mini.
Fair enough. I stopped posting and reading GS years ago so I don't know the stories posted there.

So *if* a mini version from Korg comes, it will be interesting to see what it is and of course, how much it costs.

User avatar
StillNotWorking
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by StillNotWorking » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:15 am

KSS wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:46 pm
No, it's not 3340 based. Rob makes that clear in the Part 2 video. But a few other things he says *do* fit into why you're asking. And why you mention the 101.

I have been trying for years now to get it understood that small things matter. Of course everybody knows that, but it seems that the synth community keeps picking the same small things to notice and as a result, doesn't notice the other small things which are actually leading to the IMO false conclusions.

So let's talk about a couple small things Rob actually mentioned in the video. The matched SMD expo pairs. (Don't worry, this is *not* going to be an SMD v TH diatribe!) First he mentions that due to them being better matched, they have wider accurate range. He should know better. The matching has only to do with thermal compensation and *not* expo/log conformity. Besides, the 'unmatched' PNP/NPN pairs used by ARP in the originals were good for the same 7-8 octave range he notes in the video. Often even more. Though it's also true that the basic VCO design suffers from inaccurate CV summing over temperature variations and input voltage range. This is a separate thing from the tempco of the pair itself. It has to do with the lack of an opamp on the input, instead summing directly into the expo pair. It is true -as Rob says- that these B-Oscs should have better thermal compensation than the originals, and that's a good thing.

The next thing Rob mentions is that they 'improved' the speed of the OPAs to get better waveforms, and especially into the higher ranges. WhyTF would you want that!!? Big mistake, IMO. When you clone, you need to adopt the mindset of the original designers. Unfortunately, most people find this *really* hard to do. Especially engineers. Whose job it is to 'improve' things. What makes a synth OSC distinctive is often its waveform's failure to meet the 'ideal' spec for that type, and more importantly, how that waveform changes over the range of expected use! Not to mention that the original 2600 OSCs usually reach easily to 35KHz, with many going even higher. Trying to maintain the waveshapes more accurately to an ideal (Rob didn't actually say they-he did this, but he has written before many times it being part of his 'upgrades' on other projects) up to a higher range is a small thing that leads you to hear 3340 where none is used. It will also later add to the digital reverb in a bad way, but that's another issue.

The next small thing that Rob mentioned that stung hard was his statement that they balanced the VCA expo and linear CV to have equal effect at similar voltages. Now this is going right to the core of what makes a 2600, and really most synths, the unique and special beasts we love. Always beware when someone tells you they improved the EGs or VCA of a synth. They'll say the EGs are not part of the audio chain, but that's absolutely false in actual practice. Note Rob did *not* say this, he *did* say they improved the VCA response in relation to the EG and AR CV inputs. And it's an easy guess that he also 'upgraded' the OPA in the VCA. As again, that is one of his standard GOTOs. But both of these changes completely change the character of the synth. Not that you can't find the same sounds. Or at least similar. But that you won't find them with the same ease.

All too often the character is engineered right out of the sound chain. On purpose even. But they don't realize that's what they're doing, because each small change is for the better when looked at alone. And that's how you end up hearing a 101 or 3340 out of a 2600 clone. And the mathematical accuracy of the reverb only adds to the result in a negative way. Did anyone else notice we didn't get any dry sounds?

Now to be clear, I think this synth sounds good, and is at least somewhere along the ARP arc soundwise. I won't say it's better or worse than an ARP or KORG 2600. But it *is* different. And the saddest part of that -for me- is that based on what Rob told us, there were some small choices made which made that difference bigger than it would otherwise be. Please notice that there's no B-hate in this, only technical explanations for resulting sounds.

A very large part of what makes the 2600 so great is its gain staging, and how everything fits together in its basic architecture. Thank Alan Pearlman mostly (for he designed the front panel and thus the basic architecture)-and David Friend a little- for that, and then Thank Dennis Colin for putting it all together, using Alan's Expos and his own genius to give us something worth talking about 50 years later.
Thanks for posting this thorough explanation. I watched both videos two times trying to figure out what Mr. Keeble where saying.
My interpretation where he tries to blame all wrong on the Chinese developers while saying this is a circuit altered in so many ways its outcome is not a clone. That might not be a bad thing though.

Personally I like they changed the form factor and circuit, — now it can be its own thing. Maybe change the name?
looking for service manual for the Clavia ddrum AT or ddrum III

User avatar
hamildad
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 10:46 am
Location: London

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by hamildad » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:49 am

KSS wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:46 pm

No, it's not 3340 based. Rob makes that clear in the Part 2 video. But a few other things he says *do* fit into why you're asking. And why you mention the 101.

I have been trying for years now to get it understood that small things matter. Of course everybody knows that, but it seems that the synth community keeps picking the same small things to notice and as a result, doesn't notice the other small things which are actually leading to the IMO false conclusions.

So let's talk about a couple small things Rob actually mentioned in the video..........
Great post....

Man, how good is it when someone who knows what they are talking about, takes the time to post on a synth forum, and on a behringer thread...

:yay:
My Synth Instagram here * My Synth videos here
-
External PSUs and DC jacks are the hallmarks of toys. - Graham Hinton.
-
I am one of the "tiny fraction of a percentage of oversensitive idiots" who feels the name of this site sends the wrong message.
-
This is primarily for melody and historical educational purposes - Analogue Music

User avatar
Prunesquallor
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:08 am
Location: Valencia, Spain

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Prunesquallor » Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:02 am

kingspill wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:21 pm
by TheDegenerateElite » Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:36 am

It seems weird that Keeble gets involved to increase the quantity of his own designs that he can manufacture at once, only to develop a 2600 that makes his modules less desirable. Maybe he and Behringer are planning 2500 modules instead?
DING. That's where I'll be putting my money. Although that Instruo I-ō47 Filter / Resonator filter looks pretty nice too.
He's been talking about completing his SH5 project for ages. My guess it'll be that first. :party:
If at first you don't succeed read the instruction manual.

ObsoleteModular
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue May 17, 2016 4:24 am
Location: Bight Ron

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by ObsoleteModular » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:20 am

Prunesquallor wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:02 am
kingspill wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:21 pm
by TheDegenerateElite » Mon Jan 20, 2020 9:36 am

It seems weird that Keeble gets involved to increase the quantity of his own designs that he can manufacture at once, only to develop a 2600 that makes his modules less desirable. Maybe he and Behringer are planning 2500 modules instead?
DING. That's where I'll be putting my money. Although that Instruo I-ō47 Filter / Resonator filter looks pretty nice too.
He's been talking about completing his SH5 project for ages. My guess it'll be that first. :party:
I'm wondering if they got him involved because it was sounding crap ... not that there's anything wrong with that ... if a company needs to outsource expertise then they should.

User avatar
Analog Prophet
Common Wiggler
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:24 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Analog Prophet » Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:50 am

ObsoleteModular wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:20 am

I'm wondering if they got him involved because it was sounding crap ... not that there's anything wrong with that ... if a company needs to outsource expertise then they should.
I don’t think so. If I remember right (I might be wrong) I read he was offering his services to Behringer a year ago or so.
The best beat of any music
is the beat of your own heart


http://www.analogprophet.com

inoshi
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:20 pm

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by inoshi » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:30 pm

wondering if this + the new keystep pro will replace my analog 4. So far it looks like it.

User avatar
Zymos
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:14 pm
Location: ABQ,NM

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Zymos » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:36 pm

I guess anything can replace anything, but switching to this from a multitimbral 4 voice poly synth is in <some> ways a big step backwards.

inoshi
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 362
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2018 3:20 pm

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by inoshi » Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:59 pm

Zymos wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:36 pm
I guess anything can replace anything, but switching to this from a multitimbral 4 voice poly synth is in <some> ways a big step backwards.
I regret that post already. There are many reasons why it might knock the a4 out which are specific to my mostly eurorack setup. but i don't use more than 2 a4 voices, will be replacing the sequencer, always use it to try to recreate arpish sounds, generally am not satisfied with the sounds, and have been using it for the same sounds for almost a year as a primary source.

I know this is more a result of me sucking than the synth sucking. But if i can compensate for lack of skill/talent with money then i will. :despair:
Last edited by inoshi on Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zymos
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2561
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:14 pm
Location: ABQ,NM

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Zymos » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:08 pm

All valid personal reasons to prefer one over the other. And that’s all that really matters...

User avatar
Flounderguts
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Flounderguts » Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:08 pm

inoshi wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:59 pm
I know this is more a result of me sucking than the synth sucking. But if i can compensate for lack of skill/talent with money then i will. :despair:
Absolutely! Money is a great way to make up for lack of talent, skill, motivation, fitness, and general happiness!
----------------------

Flounderguts

User avatar
brokensolderingiron
Common Wiggler
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:52 pm

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by brokensolderingiron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:00 pm

KSS wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:46 pm
No, it's not 3340 based. Rob makes that clear in the Part 2 video. But a few other things he says *do* fit into why you're asking. And why you mention the 101.
Thats saad covfefe, as i had hoped to get some cheap ass V3340 in ceap ass a A2600 imitation/illusion. Im very pragmatic about synths and brands
I have been trying for years now to get it understood that small things matter. Of course everybody knows that, but it seems that the synth community keeps picking the same small things to notice and as a result, doesn't notice the other small things which are actually leading to the IMO false conclusions.
Thats not a new thing, the bickering fat v.s thin was already up and tsunaming around in mid late 80es!
So let's talk about a couple small things Rob actually mentioned in the video. The matched SMD expo pairs. (Don't worry, this is *not* going to be an SMD v TH diatribe!) First he mentions that due to them being better matched, they have wider accurate range. He should know better. The matching has only to do with thermal compensation and *not* expo/log conformity.
It does have with expo/log conformity to do, you match Rbe etc for repeatability among oscs.
Besides, the 'unmatched' PNP/NPN pairs used by ARP in the originals were good for the same 7-8 octave range he notes in the video. Often even more. Though it's also true that the basic VCO design suffers from inaccurate CV summing over temperature variations and input voltage range. This is a separate thing from the tempco of the pair itself. It has to do with the lack of an opamp on the input, instead summing directly into the expo pair. It is true -as Rob says- that these B-Oscs should have better thermal compensation than the originals, and that's a good thing.
Sure they where but its always better to get wider range as a bonus, in reality you can stretch the original pair current sinking well over 14 octave range with bent exponetiality of course.
The next thing Rob mentions is that they 'improved' the speed of the OPAs to get better waveforms, and especially into the higher ranges. WhyTF would you want that!!? Big mistake, IMO.
Not at all you could just trow a tiny cap over to slow down the osc responce to crappy down performance if you want.I see it as bonus with improved osc.
When you clone, you need to adopt the mindset of the original designers.
Not at all, B2600 is not about cloning to the exact original crap as Korg does then tricks people in to pay 4000usd for that original crap,
Behringer just plays a marketing game to trick people it is a copy of the original but is not.
Unfortunately, most people find this *really* hard to do. Especially engineers. Whose job it is to 'improve' things.
Sure indeed! No not always. Engineers are strange, like musicians but different.
What makes a synth OSC distinctive is often its waveform's failure to meet the 'ideal' spec for that type, and more importantly, how that waveform changes over the range of expected use!
All VCO's meets their designed failures, none is designed to be perfect , cant be designed to be mathematically perfect and on we go.
Not to mention that the original 2600 OSCs usually reach easily to 35KHz, with many going even higher. Trying to maintain the waveshapes more accurately to an ideal (Rob didn't actually say they-he did this, but he has written before many times it being part of his 'upgrades' on other projects) up to a higher range is a small thing that leads you to hear 3340 where none is used. It will also later add to the digital reverb in a bad way, but that's another issue.
Hmm okay.
The next small thing that Rob mentioned that stung hard was his statement that they balanced the VCA expo and linear CV to have equal effect at similar voltages. Now this is going right to the core of what makes a 2600, and really most synths, the unique and special beasts we love. Always beware when someone tells you they improved the EGs or VCA of a synth. They'll say the EGs are not part of the audio chain, but that's absolutely false in actual practice. Note Rob did *not* say this, he *did* say they improved the VCA response in relation to the EG and AR CV inputs. And it's an easy guess that he also 'upgraded' the OPA in the VCA. As again, that is one of his standard GOTOs. But both of these changes completely change the character of the synth. Not that you can't find the same sounds. Or at least similar. But that you won't find them with the same ease.
That statement of Rob has to be verified to actual circuit behavior.
All too often the character is engineered right out of the sound chain. On purpose even. But they don't realize that's what they're doing, because each small change is for the better when looked at alone. And that's how you end up hearing a 101 or 3340 out of a 2600 clone. And the mathematical accuracy of the reverb only adds to the result in a negative way. Did anyone else notice we didn't get any dry sounds?
Most demos is crap these days, im not worried, if B2600 is cheapo and as long it sounds OK, 3340 or not why would i care of none exact clone of ARP2600. Where does Behringer say its exact clone of A2600?
Now to be clear, I think this synth sounds good, and is at least somewhere along the ARP arc soundwise. I won't say it's better or worse than an ARP or KORG 2600. But it *is* different. And the saddest part of that -for me- is that based on what Rob told us, there were some small choices made which made that difference bigger than it would otherwise be. Please notice that there's no B-hate in this, only technical explanations for resulting sounds.
No time for sadnes and crocodile tears, you can always build a clone if you want and have at least 4 different variants on the A2600 to buy from!
A very large part of what makes the 2600 so great is its gain staging, and how everything fits together in its basic architecture. Thank Alan Pearlman mostly (for he designed the front panel and thus the basic architecture)-and David Friend a little- for that, and then Thank Dennis Colin for putting it all together, using Alan's Expos and his own genius to give us something worth talking about 50 years later.
I dont think the A2600 are particular great or interesting as such, not an ARP fanboi but i thank you for your analyzizs of the old bugger.
P: i just found this A2600 video, kinda telling and entertaining in ways.
Last edited by brokensolderingiron on Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

KSS
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by KSS » Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:01 pm

Analog Prophet wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:12 am
Yes Arp was purchased by Korg 5 years ago. I’m happy Korg has honored the Arp brand and resurrected those great machines to a Jurassic Park of old legends accessible to everybody... more or less.
Korg did *not* "purchase" ARP. The re-activated the treble clef logo. Details in my post yesterday in another thread here:

http://muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 0#p3187438

KSS
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2734
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:28 am

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by KSS » Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:50 pm

I wonder -truly- if there is a communication gap due to perhaps not being a native English speaker? I mean no ill will in asking, I only saw in the copyright thread with mskala that you also misunderstood what he said -at least at first- though it did seem that you came to understand based on your last post there? I couldn't be sure, but it seemed as if you came to understand what he'd been saying all along. Again, absolutely *no* ill will is meant, I have seen how culture and language differences can show up in threads in bad ways.

With this in mind, the arguments in that thread I would hope to avoid here, as this reply of yours seems to largely miss the points I was making , and while you seem to have technical ability, you are incorrect about a couple things here.

Most importantly, I suggest you read Alan Pearlman's expo patent, which is available at till.com. Go to the ARP patents section. There you will find that your belief about the reason and result in matching the expo pair is incorrect. I also discussed this in the DIY section of MW not too long ago if you want more context. That was in a TTSH build thread, probably V4. Matching is for thermal compensation, not log conformance. That's straight from the inventor of the circuit, as seen in the patent. In that other thread, I cite paragraph and line numbers so if you don't want to read looking for it, that thread may be a good first stop. However, I suggest anyone seeking technical truth *do* take the time to read and understand the various patents relating to vintage synthesizers. Don Till has at least the moog and ARP collections well sorted.

My post was not -at all- about fat v thin sound. It is about how small engineering changes -intended as upgrades- end up instead removing the important character and operating characteristics of vintage synths.

I do see in your reply here that you do not mind if it no longer is the sound of the original, and that's fine. My post and work is for those who do care about and wish for close similarity in sound and operation to the original.

I also think you misunderstood what I was saying about the waveforms, based on your reply that inserting a cap in the feedback would be enough to undo what Rob had done. I probably did not write that clearly enough.

It seems you didn't notice that Robs claim of improvement 7-8 octaves is *not* an improvement over a typical well cared for 2600. That was part of my point. He's doing things which change the sound for no good result-improvement. We will also have to agree to disagree that "its always better to get wider range as a bonus" because that's the knife in the heart of the reason why clones mostly suck compared to the originals. I have been involved with synths since the late 60's, and find it sad that everyone expects all OSCs to meet huge ranges, when acoustic instruments are revered with extremely limited scope. Trying to make every synth into a be all, do all is the worst thing ever.

This is really the whole of my point, distilled into one thought: When making a clone, take something from the medical profession's Hippocratic oath, and "first do no harm."

Finally, it is rather funny you suggest I might "build a clone for myself" from one of the 4 available. Later this year you'll see the irony of that statement. I don;t recognize you and don;t remember reading any of your posts before today, so I realize I have only a small understanding of your viewpoints, experience and concerns. Perhaps that is also true for you with me. A reading of my posts might better reflect my own experience, and abilities, especially where ARP are concerned.

Until then, Thank you for your feedback, and I think you will enjoy learning more about how the Alan pearlman mixed NPN/PNP expo pair work.
brokensolderingiron wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:00 pm
KSS wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:46 pm
No, it's not 3340 based. Rob makes that clear in the Part 2 video. But a few other things he says *do* fit into why you're asking. And why you mention the 101.
Thats saad covfefe, as i had hoped to get some cheap ass V3340 in ceap ass a A2600 imitation/illusion. Im very pragmatic about synths and brands
I have been trying for years now to get it understood that small things matter. Of course everybody knows that, but it seems that the synth community keeps picking the same small things to notice and as a result, doesn't notice the other small things which are actually leading to the IMO false conclusions.
Thats not a new thing, the bickering fat v.s thin was already up and tsunaming around in mid late 80es!
So let's talk about a couple small things Rob actually mentioned in the video. The matched SMD expo pairs. (Don't worry, this is *not* going to be an SMD v TH diatribe!) First he mentions that due to them being better matched, they have wider accurate range. He should know better. The matching has only to do with thermal compensation and *not* expo/log conformity.
It does have with expo/log conformity to do, you match Rbe etc for repeatability among oscs.
Besides, the 'unmatched' PNP/NPN pairs used by ARP in the originals were good for the same 7-8 octave range he notes in the video. Often even more. Though it's also true that the basic VCO design suffers from inaccurate CV summing over temperature variations and input voltage range. This is a separate thing from the tempco of the pair itself. It has to do with the lack of an opamp on the input, instead summing directly into the expo pair. It is true -as Rob says- that these B-Oscs should have better thermal compensation than the originals, and that's a good thing.
Sure they where but its always better to get wider range as a bonus, in reality you can stretch the original pair current sinking well over 14 octave range with bent exponetiality of course.
The next thing Rob mentions is that they 'improved' the speed of the OPAs to get better waveforms, and especially into the higher ranges. WhyTF would you want that!!? Big mistake, IMO.
Not at all you could just trow a tiny cap over to slow down the osc responce to crappy down performance if you want.I see it as bonus with improved osc.
When you clone, you need to adopt the mindset of the original designers.
Not at all, B2600 is not about cloning to the exact original crap as Korg does then tricks people in to pay 4000usd for that original crap,
Behringer just plays a marketing game to trick people it is a copy of the original but is not.
Unfortunately, most people find this *really* hard to do. Especially engineers. Whose job it is to 'improve' things.
Sure indeed! No not always. Engineers are strange, like musicians but different.
What makes a synth OSC distinctive is often its waveform's failure to meet the 'ideal' spec for that type, and more importantly, how that waveform changes over the range of expected use!
All VCO's meets their designed failures, none is designed to be perfect , cant be designed to be mathematically perfect and on we go.
Not to mention that the original 2600 OSCs usually reach easily to 35KHz, with many going even higher. Trying to maintain the waveshapes more accurately to an ideal (Rob didn't actually say they-he did this, but he has written before many times it being part of his 'upgrades' on other projects) up to a higher range is a small thing that leads you to hear 3340 where none is used. It will also later add to the digital reverb in a bad way, but that's another issue.
Hmm okay.
The next small thing that Rob mentioned that stung hard was his statement that they balanced the VCA expo and linear CV to have equal effect at similar voltages. Now this is going right to the core of what makes a 2600, and really most synths, the unique and special beasts we love. Always beware when someone tells you they improved the EGs or VCA of a synth. They'll say the EGs are not part of the audio chain, but that's absolutely false in actual practice. Note Rob did *not* say this, he *did* say they improved the VCA response in relation to the EG and AR CV inputs. And it's an easy guess that he also 'upgraded' the OPA in the VCA. As again, that is one of his standard GOTOs. But both of these changes completely change the character of the synth. Not that you can't find the same sounds. Or at least similar. But that you won't find them with the same ease.
That statement of Rob has to be verified to actual circuit behavior.
All too often the character is engineered right out of the sound chain. On purpose even. But they don't realize that's what they're doing, because each small change is for the better when looked at alone. And that's how you end up hearing a 101 or 3340 out of a 2600 clone. And the mathematical accuracy of the reverb only adds to the result in a negative way. Did anyone else notice we didn't get any dry sounds?
Most demos is crap these days, im not worried, if B2600 is cheapo and as long it sounds OK, 3340 or not why would i care of none exact clone of ARP2600. Where does Behringer say its exact clone of A2600?
Now to be clear, I think this synth sounds good, and is at least somewhere along the ARP arc soundwise. I won't say it's better or worse than an ARP or KORG 2600. But it *is* different. And the saddest part of that -for me- is that based on what Rob told us, there were some small choices made which made that difference bigger than it would otherwise be. Please notice that there's no B-hate in this, only technical explanations for resulting sounds.
No time for sadnes and crocodile tears, you can always build a clone if you want and have at least 4 different variants on the A2600 to buy from!
A very large part of what makes the 2600 so great is its gain staging, and how everything fits together in its basic architecture. Thank Alan Pearlman mostly (for he designed the front panel and thus the basic architecture)-and David Friend a little- for that, and then Thank Dennis Colin for putting it all together, using Alan's Expos and his own genius to give us something worth talking about 50 years later.
I dont think the A2600 are particular great or interesting as such, not an ARP fanboi but i thank you for your analyzizs of the old bugger.

User avatar
Ceres
Common Wiggler
Posts: 229
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 1:20 pm
Location: Local

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Ceres » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:37 pm

brokensolderingiron wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:00 pm

Most demos is crap these days, im not worried, if B2600 is cheapo and as long it sounds OK, 3340 or not why would i care of none exact clone of ARP2600. Where does Behringer say its exact clone of A2600?

The product literally has 2600 in the name, the 2 part video tease starts off with a real 2600 and the engineer discusses his attempts to make it sound and behave like a real 2600.

If it’s not important how it sounds and behaves, what is important? If your only criteria is that it is a synth made by behringer than you could go buy a couple Neutrons and have more capabilities than a 2600 at a very cheap price and have it now.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there.

User avatar
SynthBaron
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 3379
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 2:43 am

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by SynthBaron » Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:55 pm

A 2600 with knobs instead of sliders would be nice. The UI just gives me a headache, miniaturized as they've done here it's even worse.

User avatar
Flounderguts
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 5:56 pm
Location: SLC

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Flounderguts » Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:27 pm

There's a fun project! Replace all the sliders with knobs!

Or map a midi controller like 60 knobs to all the sliders...not with an original 2600, of course.
----------------------

Flounderguts

Divinital

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Divinital » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:18 pm

such a dope synth, been any updates on its release? not going to be able to afford all these behringers

User avatar
Analog Prophet
Common Wiggler
Posts: 112
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:24 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Analog Prophet » Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:48 pm

KSS wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:01 pm
Analog Prophet wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:12 am
Yes Arp was purchased by Korg 5 years ago. I’m happy Korg has honored the Arp brand and resurrected those great machines to a Jurassic Park of old legends accessible to everybody... more or less.
Korg did *not* "purchase" ARP. The re-activated the treble clef logo. Details in my post yesterday in another thread here:

http://muffwiggler.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 0#p3187438
Thank you KSS for right info, I misinterpret the info from a demo by Korg.
The best beat of any music
is the beat of your own heart


http://www.analogprophet.com

User avatar
StillNotWorking
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 654
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by StillNotWorking » Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:30 pm

3hands wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:19 pm
Instead of arguing about 2 clones, if you so choose to put your “ethics” where your mouths are, spend the money and get the original. Otherwise it’s simply squabbling over who’s the better liar.
Actually, this time I don't believe that to be true. Korg and B gone very different paths on this journey.
While Korg went for the full-on vintage vibe experience including transport case which no one has room for and doubtfully ever be using other when selling the synth. B vent all in with an illuminated christmas tree officially saying its a modernized synth inspired by the 2600 circuits and design, — developed in China with a well known synth tech's thankfully blessing.

Beside price differense one now also has the option to consider form factor. I welcome this from B. I'm sure both will make similar enought sounds to be usefull, — especially when price difference are considered. Personally I hope there's not a second hand Korg announced before I have my TSSH mark I up running. At least these product launches made me interested in the 2600 again, — until the next eurorack module are in :cloud:
looking for service manual for the Clavia ddrum AT or ddrum III

Divinital

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by Divinital » Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:39 pm

Can u make R2D2 with this beast tho

tenembre

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by tenembre » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:16 am

KSS wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 5:46 pm

So let's talk about a couple small things Rob actually mentioned in the video. The matched SMD expo pairs. (Don't worry, this is *not* going to be an SMD v TH diatribe!) First he mentions that due to them being better matched, they have wider accurate range. (emphasis added)
He didn't quite say that, though he may be implying it. Here's what he said:

"The really important thing is to get the exponential generator accurate, so there's [something] 7-8 octaves of pitch range, and so in an SMD design we're able to use some really closely matched transistors, which is really useful, but also, because of the design of the circuit it's smaller in SMD, it's less sensitive to temperature change."

As you can see, he's not directly claiming that the closely matched transistors give wider range. He just says that they are "really useful", and then connects that thought to less temperature change sensitivity. Not saying you're wrong in your interpretation necessarily - just that it's not as clearcut as you are making it seem.
KSS wrote:
The next thing Rob mentions is that they 'improved' the speed of the OPAs to get better waveforms, and especially into the higher ranges. (emphasis added)
Again, this is an interpretation of what he said they may or not be correct. Here's what he said:

"Some improvements in the speed of the op-amps to enable the waveforms to be accurate, but also be able to go to high pitch levels".

Note- not more accurate. Just to be accurate. Accurate to what? The original design? Theoretical perfection? We don't know. But we do know, from earlier in the video, that he is speaking about improvements to the first prototype that was made before he was involved. That's the context.

So it seems reasonable, or at least possible, that the improvements are to get the final product closer to the original 2600. He did also say something about a modern sound, so who knows. (I'm not doing any more transcribing of the video- this has taken too long to write already, lol). But there's enough ambiguity here that ranting about how engineers ruin things is premature. Certainly the egos of a number of people here are invested in the idea that they will get it wrong, but I'm inclined to give them a chance.

User avatar
thetwlo
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4939
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:05 pm
Location: East Bay, CA US

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by thetwlo » Wed Jan 22, 2020 12:21 am

those slider pots suck, WMD offers caps, Makes them a bit better. They're just copying mis-direction. They don't need an LED.

User avatar
chaosick
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:44 pm
Location: Yamcouver
Contact:

Re: Behringer 2600

Post by chaosick » Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:43 am

Flounderguts wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:27 pm
There's a fun project! Replace all the sliders with knobs!

Or map a midi controller like 60 knobs to all the sliders...not with an original 2600, of course.
Then it will become a 2500 :)

..+ a few hundred other differences.

Post Reply

Return to “General Gear”